Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyMobility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consensus to delete as failing notabilty requirement. nancy (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyMobility

MyMobility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable technology company. There are 20 references on the page, not a single one meets our standards, it is a mixture of self-penned listings, directories and self-penned websites, they are a couple of sources that almost meet our standards but the mention of mymobility is so trivial as to fail as a source. I cannot find nothing that would suggest that better sources exist. Fredrick day (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete – At this time. However, the parent company Centric Holdings Group does establish notability as shown here [1]. If and when the main group establishes an article here at Wikipedia, all for redirecting MyMobility at that time Shoessss |  Chat  12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Notablity is not inherented - that means we might need an article on Centric Holdings Group and this gets a line on there. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Centric Holdings Group is a publically listed company, so therefore it's financial data is publically available, as are details of the running of the company, shareholders, board of directors, etc. MyMobility is not publically listed, so none of that information will be available. Are we going to say a small company cannot be as notable as a large one? It also isn't fair to perform that search worldwide - you'll get literally tonnes of results which have no bearing. If those search results prove notability for Centric, then these search results prove notability for MyMobility. --GrahamDo (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sorry to disagree GrahamDo, but the sources and references I supplied, with concern to Centric Holdings Group, are from second and third party informational sources i.e. Newspapers – News Broadcasts and other creditable – verifiable and reliable sources that give in-depth information. On the other hand, the sources you supplied for {{MyMobility]] are primarily short company news’s releases – information from the MyMobility web-site and information off the Centric Holdings Group web-site which is the parent company of MyMobility. I know it sounds like I am splitting hairs, but a requirement for a claim to Notability is that the Company – Group – Individual etc, etc have received significant coverage in second and third party informational source. Hope this explains a little better my opinion to delete at this time. By they way, nice work on the SA Waste Holdings (Pty) Ltd. Shoessss |  Chat  17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I contest that this article fails to meet standards. First off, ITWeb is a completely independant news agency, which has published a case study about MyMobility's customers. Secondly, while some of the references are "self-penned" (References to people's personal profile pages and bloggs at MyGenius), and a few of them are off MyMobility's own website, all such references are substantiated as well by third parties. I absolutely fail to see why this article should not be included in wikipedia. It is not written in an overtly NPOV or advertising style IMO (And besides, if the complainant feels that it is, he should tag it as such), and it serves as evidence that mobile applications are growing in South Africa in general. --GrahamDo (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also relatively obvious that MyMobility is the only company in South Africa (At LEAST in Gauteng) that offers mobile line of business type applications and solutions. Without this company, searches for anything to do with mobility in South Africa only yield ringtones and games for mobile phones. :-/ --GrahamDo (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP - I find it very interesting. I didn't even know that places like this exist. We need more of these articles. Very well done!198.54.202.30 (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid ILIKEIT is not a policy based reason for keeping the article. However, it's a good think a south africian based IP was just hanging around to let us know such things! amazing indeed. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not appreciated. It's a coincidence. Deal. :p I'll play devil's advocate and say the above comment could be construed as ILIKEIT, and also "It's usefull". More people are using Wikipedia in addition to (Or even INSTEAD OF) Google as a primary source of information. MyMobility would come up if you searched for mobile software companies writing for Windows Mobile. It's definitely something people would want to know. Not that that's a reason in and of itself not to delete, but it's definitely worth considering. How'd you find the article anyway, Fredrick? You just sit around constantly refreshing "Recent changes" every 5 seconds? I would think ANY comments about the article's worthiness for inclusion should come from South African readers... Hmm, silly me. :p -GrahamDo (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but I'm constantly poking around in Wikipedia. I'm still learning the ins and outs of this. So can I now help if I stumble onto something that's interesting to me? With coments like that Fredrick might just give new users a wrong idee about what this place is all about. Sorry if it's not good enough that my IP address are being displayed, but I see no need to register if I'm just reading through random articles. 198.54.202.30 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll fix it. Is that your only objection? -GrahamDo (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Done - have changed references to Solutions (Mind you, I could only find them on Stuart Jack & Clint Latour's profile blurb) to be more specific (Applications, hardware, devices, services). Change your vote, now? :-) -GrahamDo (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I still don't think the business itself is notable, at least not from the references given in the version I read. But the quality of writing in business articles, and the removal of management and marketing-speak, have been particular concerns of mine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment LOL check out the history of the MyMobility article. Fredrick is systematically tearing it apart! I really don't think that scrapping content which (in your opinion) does NOT establish notability helps to establish notability. Nor do I think it helps your cause to delete the article. It's just in incredibly bad faith. I honestly have never seen someone so passionate about NOT having something in Wikipedia! Anyone else starting to think this guy maybe works for a competitor of MyMobility, which feels threatened by having it listed in Wikipedia? ;-) You're just making an ass of yourself, dude! -GrahamDo (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Never heard of it before - since they are based in South Africa and I am not - why would I give two hoots about the company? please keep your guesswork and slurs on my character to yourself, Personal attacks might lead to your account being blocked. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's see:
1 The article was a stub, with two lines in it, when you decided (In the very same minute of me adding it), to nominate it for speedy deletion.
2 After I added {{hangon}}, you replaced it with {{prod}} and informed me I had 5 days to "bring it up to scratch" (Paraphrased - can't remember exact words; check the talk page).
3 As I added sections, you removed them as I added them.
4 I went to an administrator and complained on his talk page about your conduct, after which you left a message on MY talk page stating that you wouldn't touch the article again, but would check back in "a few weeks" and nominate it for deletion if you felt it still did not establish notability
5 Less than 24 hours after your "5 days" comment (Much less your "a few weeks" comment), and after I had indicated that I felt I had collected enough references, you started this nomination. Hardly "5 days", now is it (much less "a few weeks")?
6 You are now systematically removing entire paragraphs and sections from the article, simply because you believe those sections to be irrelevant, or even MORE simply because you don't believe said sections/paragraphs prove notability.
Either you have a personal reason (Outside of Wikipedia policy) for not wanting this specific article here, or YOU are embarking on a personal campaign against ME (And I've never met you before). I'm confused as to which it is. -GrahamDo (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable tech company as per freddy's nom. I'd also encourage other editors to stop attacking the nom of this article and concentrate on the facts. 193.35.134.151 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.